2.

Discussion and possible action to Appoint/Reappoint and swear in members to the Board of Examiners.  All seats to expire September 15, 2010.

Secretary Aherne read the names of the members of the Board of Examiners to be sworn in.  Secretary Aherne stated that Robert Fuller, Armin Wolski, and James Reed would not be able to be sworn in today, and Mr. Daniel Shapiro was no longer able to serve.  President Walker read the mission statement of the Board of Examiners and said that they are a group of experts whose purpose is to hear and request materials by the public to see if new standards meet the Code.  President Walker thanked the members that applied to the BOE for their willingness to serve.

 

Commissioner Theriault made a motion seconded by Commissioner Murphy to appoint and swear in six members (Mel Cammisa, Dick Glumac, Manuel Flores, Kevin Mirkovich, Jason Langkammerer, and Ken Cleaveland) to The Board of Examiners. 

 

The motion passed unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 001-08

 

President Walker read the Oath of Office, and swore in the members of the Board of Examiners.

 

3.

President’s Announcements.

President Walker said that there has been a lot of press about the Department and changes that have been made over the past few months, and stated that she believed she could speak for all of the Commission in saying that their most valuable asset is the DBI staff, including the Director. President Walker stated that the BIC is committed to making the changes since all of the Commissioners wanted to reform and make DBI more efficient and transparent. President Walker said that there have been huge adjustments in the way the Department operates, and said that this creates a lot of nervousness for staff.  President Walker stated that the BIC is involved in this process and are aware of what is going on.  President Walker said that the Commission has trust in the Director and staff and are moving forward with the process to have a better Department.  President Walker thanked Director Hasenin, the public, and staff for moving forward with the BPR document.

 

4.

Director’s Report.

a.  Status of MIS

Director Hasenin thanked the Commission for their support and stated that he came to DBI on a mission to transform the Department into a more efficient operation and to create a fair and equitable process that would involve many stakeholders from staff and others in the process.  Director Hasenin said that the Department is making tough changes and choices and he understands that this creates anxiety with staff, but said he is working on that aspect of the changes.  Director Hasenin said the Department is committed to change and he appreciates the support of the BIC, the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors, and everyone in the community. 

 

Director Hasenin stated that the Department continues to assess its needs and that MIS staff is looking at making some changes to assist the permitting process.  Director Hasenin said that DBI staff is attempting to move up the priority of automation of scheduling.

b.  Financial Report

Director Hasenin said that the Department continues to monitor its expenditures, and it varies in terms of revenues.  Director Hasenin stated that the Department is bringing in less revenue than expenditures, however the budget anticipated this.  Director Hasenin said that DBI continues to limit expenditures and is only filling vacancies when necessary. 

 

President Walker stated that Director Hasenin mentioned to her that the Department had actually received a grant.

 

Director Hasenin said that was correct, and said he had planned to report that under the seismic safety item.  Director Hasenin stated that DBI and other City agencies submitted a request from the Federal Government and Congress to get funding for seismic programs, and the Department was lucky to get $1M approved; staff now has to give specifics as to how the grant will be used.

 

Commissioner Murphy asked Director Hasenin if he was going to be raising permit fees.

 

Director Hasenin said that he would address this question under item 6, the fee study for DBI.

 

The Commissioners had some questions about the financial report including verifying that the Department’s current fund balance contribution is $7.04M. Commissioner Sattary asked if the projected year end revenues and expenditures was a straight line of what the year-to-date is or if it reflects the knowledge of the Department for expenses that are planned for the remainder of the year.  Director Hasenin said that it was a combination of actual versus projected as the report is based on monthly figures, but the entire year has to be looked at.

 

The Commissioners and Director Hasenin discussed several points such as:  The budget is a mix of actual vs. projected, Expenditures are $47.4M and now DBI projects $41.5M so there is a chance to be below budget on expenditures; the Department is holding at about a 10% vacancy rate, and if things get worse in terms of construction this will negatively affect DBI’s revenue.

c.  Update on interdepartmental coordination meetings and recommendations.

Director Hasenin reported that the Department continues to meet with its sister agencies, such as the Planning and Fire Departments.  Director Hasenin said that he met with the new Director of Planning and is excited about Planning’s cooperation to resolve cross department issues. 

 

President Walker stated that the BIC is in the process of scheduling the next joint Planning and Building Inspection Commission meeting that would hopefully happen in March or April.  President Walker said that the Commissions would discuss the interdepartmental issues and prepare the agendas accordingly, and if the Commissioners had any specific agenda items to e-mail them to Secretary Aherne.

d.  Update on the overall plan for the reconfiguration of DBI.

Director Hasenin said that the process that DBI has to go through to do the remodeling is slower than he would like.  Director Hasenin stated that DBI has been working on remodeling the present building, as well as considering the option of moving to another building entirely, and hopefully by the next meeting he would have a letter of intent for the new office space. Director Hasenin stated that there are two somewhat empty floors that the Department would like to reconfigure and fix to utilize the existing building space, as well as to improve the working conditions for staff without spending a lot of money.  Director Hasenin said that it takes a lot of money to reconfigure, and the Department has been waiting for six months.  Director Hasenin stated that it is not acceptable for staff to be cramped in small spaces, for example there are four Senior Housing Inspectors sitting in one small office with four desks.  Director Hasenin said that unfortunately the Department may have to live with this situation for a while. 

 

President Walker stated that because of the anticipated downturn in permitting that the aspect of moving to an entirely new building is something that might be moved further out as the Department’s situation unfolds, and said she would like to discuss this at the next meeting.

 

Director Hasenin and the Commissioners discussed the following points regarding moving DBI to a new location:

• Director Hasenin said DBI wants to make sure that an offer for the building is in place, and also since it is a private office building that there is not going to be major capital improvements or expenditures.
• President Walker stated that it is convenient for customers to have Planning right next to Building, and asked if Planning would be moving as well.
• Director Hasenin said this is such a high level idea, and that there may be other City agencies moving into the proposed building but that is something for the Mayor’s office to look at.
• Commissioner Murphy asked if the new building would be delivered custom for DBI’s & Planning’s needs.
• Director Hasenin said that tenant improvement issues are usually negotiated during the lease, and DBI is relying on the Real Estate Department to assist with this.
• Commissioner Murphy asked if the 4^th and 5^th floors at DBI’s current location needed painting and carpeting.
• Director Hasenin said yes, but the way that the system is set up, this is also costly.  Presently there is staff at 1650 & 1660 Mission St. and the Department is trying to move everyone to 1660 Mission St.
• Commissioner Murphy said it may make more sense not to spend money in the old space and move faster to the new place.
• Director Hasenin stated DBI is trying to spend the least amount of money possible.
• Director Hasenin said the decision of whether to move to a new building or not will have an impact on the Department for years to come.
• President Walker stated that she has concerns about doing too much at once, since DBI is already making changes and are in the middle of a major BPR.
• Director Hasenin stated that when Planning moved out DBI staff expected to have a great space & an improved work environment, and this has not happened so at some point the Department has to deliver.

e.  Update on Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS).

Director Hasenin reported that the Department continues to work with the Applied Technology Council (ATC) that DBI has contracted to perform the work.  Director Hasenin said that staff met with ATC and are excited to get the CAPSS project moving, so hopefully it will not take more than a month to go through the City’s process and modifications.  Director Hasenin stated that there is an advisory committee that will meet in February, and said that he will update the BIC on where the Department is with the contract. 

 

Commissioner Sattary said that he read a recent article in the S.F. Guardian that related to the tall building initiative.  Commissioner Sattary stated that there is a perception that San Francisco “dropped the ball” in terms of the tall building issue, but said he knows that the Department put out an Administrative Bulletin, AB-083, and policies that have immediate implications.

 

Director Hasenin stated that when he came to DBI, there were two things that the Department had informally committed funding to from previous administrations: One was the CAPSS contract for $500K, and the other was a research effort with some professional organizations for $200K.  Director Hasenin said that there was a commitment to these programs but it was not determined where the funding would come from for the $200K project, so he did not feel that it was part of DBI’s core services to fund research with those professional organizations and decided that the Department would not participate.  President Walker questioned possibly using some of the grant money for this project. Director Hasenin said it is more important to use it to get San Francisco seismically prepared than to use it for research.

 

President Walker said that there is interest from the Mayor’s Office to use some of the money from the Unreinforced Masonry Seismic Fund, $50M, and redirect it to low interest loans for solar panel installation.

f.  Update on the implementation of the Business Process Reengineering (BPR).

Director Hasenin said that the implementation plan was not ready yet, but said that he has been meeting with staff and the stakeholders who originally worked on the BPR and they are working on it.  Director Hasenin stated that hopefully the recommendations will be done by either the February or March BIC meeting.

 

President Walker called for public comment.

 

Mr. Ken Cleaveland of BOMA said that it is ill advised to use the UMB bond fund for anything other than seismic improvements to the City of San Francisco.  Mr. Cleaveland stated that it was news to him that these funds were going to be used for solar panels, but the funding should come from somewhere else since that money was approved by the voters for seismic use and to make the City stronger for the next earthquake. 

 

Ms. Espinola Jackson stated that she has lived in the Bayview-Hunter’s Point area since 1948, and she has a grave concern since most of the coastland around Bayview-Hunter’s Point is landfill.  Ms. Jackson said that everyone knows about global warming and eventually the whole area near the ballpark will be covered with water, including Harris Head Park.  Ms. Jackson stated that about two weeks ago when it rained heavily the whole area was covered with water, and no one could get through.  Ms. Jackson said she is concerned since San Francisco is prone to earthquakes, and said that she has stated this before City Planning as well.  Ms. Jackson stated that in 1974 the voters of San Francisco voted on the tall building issue.  Ms. Jackson stated that a lot of people have come to San Francisco and they miss their hometowns in New York, Canada, and other areas so they want San Francisco to look like where they came from.  Ms. Jackson said that she is too frightened to go downtown because of the tall buildings, and said that no one will be safe in those areas during an earthquake because the buildings will be tumbling down.  Ms. Jackson thanked Director Hasenin for the work he has done since coming to DBI, and said that she heard the accolades on the 19^th of December and is hoping that the Commission will support the Director in doing his job.

5.

Public Comment:  The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.

Ms. Espinola Jackson said that on December 19^th, an item was presented by a young man from the Health Department (Dr. Rajiv Bhatia) that were nothing but lies and she stated that he was the biggest liar in town.  Ms. Jackson stated that he (Dr. Bhatia) had the nerve to say that the only reason why people in Bayview-Hunter’s Point have asthma is because they are dirty and do not clean their homes.  Ms. Jackson said that everyone should look at the oil spill when a command center was set up for the birds and people have been complaining about Parcel “A” and their children are dying, sick, and have nosebleeds yet nothing has been set up for the citizens of Bayview-Hunter’s Point; that is a crime.  Ms. Jackson stated that he (Dr. Bhatia) had the nerve to mention “best practices” and he has not used any best practices in Bayview-Hunter’s Point.  Ms. Jackson addressed President Walker and said that according to Robert’s Rules of Order, as Chair of the BIC Ms. Walker can not make motions or second motions and said she was not sure why the City Attorney had not brought this to the Commission’s attention.  Ms. Jackson said that President Walker can vote but any time Ms. Walker wants to make a motion she has to remove herself from the seat of Chair, yet President Walker has never done so.  Ms. Jackson stated that if anyone was to get upset about decisions made by this Board, then every decision that President Walker voted on or seconded while being seated as Chair could be null and void.  Ms. Jackson said that she hoped this would not happen again this year and that the Commission Secretary is to call the roll call vote so that the audience will know how each Commissioner voted.

 

6.

Presentation by Matrix Consulting Group regarding fee study for DBI.[Mark Carpenter of Matrix]

Director Hasenin gave a brief overview as to why the Department needs a fee study, and said that there has not been a fee study to analyze what DBI is doing or to know if staff is appropriately charging for services.  Director Hasenin said that the Department is working on going through the RFP process to bring in a consulting firm to help with this study.  Director Hasenin stated that time is of the essence so the consultants and staff are working on a tight timeline to go through the process, do the work, and come up with presentations.  Director Hasenin said that he wants to have the results of any fee analysis and conclusions included in this year’s budget, so the Department does not have to wait another year-and-a-half to make the necessary changes. 

Mr. Mark Carpenter of Matrix Consulting Group said that the Department of Building Inspection has hired Matrix to do a fee study.  Mr. Carpenter stated that they “kicked off” the fee study yesterday and are moving forward with a series of lengthy meetings with DBI staff.  Mr. Carpenter gave a PowerPoint presentation of the proposed fee study including:

• Introduction to the Matrix Consulting Group: Senior team has provided management & financial consulting services to local government for over 25 years; Matrix is a ‘fact based’ firm utilizing detailed analytical models.
• Matrix Project Team: 

President – Richard Brady
Vice-President – Gary Goelitz
Senior Manager – Mark Carpenter
Senior Manager – Nicole Kissam

• Scope of Services:  Study the full cost of providing services for DBI, including Permit Processing, Plan Review, Inspection, and Administration.
• Use the resulting information to update DBI’s fee schedule.
• Big Picture on Fees for Service.
• Fee Principles & Philosophy (1) – Fees should be assessed according to the individual or private benefit gained.
• Fee Principles & Philosophy (2) – A profit making objective should not be included in the assessment of user fees.
• Key Issues Framing This Study.
• General Project Approach.
• Methodology Basics - To determine the “total estimated and reasonable cost of providing services”.
• Defining “Total Cost” - The calculation of the total cost of providing services including Cost Components: Direct, Indirect, Cross-Departmental, & Other.
• Proposed Work Plan (1):  Project Kick Off, Analysis of Fees, Analysis of Processes.
• Proposed Work Plan (2):  Cost/Revenue Analysis, Comparative Fee Survey, & Review & Revise Results. 
• Proposed Work Plan (3):  Presentation & Report, Present to Board.
• Important Notes About the Fee Study Process:  Staff will be most involved during Tasks 1-3 (Time estimates, Volume data, Budget/Cost data, Review & Revisions of Results.
• This is not a management audit or performance assessment, it is a cost of service study.
• Remember:  total cost and “fee” or “price” are separate issues.

 

Director Hasenin said that because of the time constraints and aggressive schedule that were laid out for Matrix Consulting, the Department will have extensive meetings which started yesterday, and will continue today and tomorrow. 

 

The Commissioners had concerns, made comments and asked many questions about the fee study including:  (Director’s abbreviated responses appear in parenthesis)  [Mark Carpenter’s abbreviated responses appear in brackets]

 

*  President Walker -

• Inquired about interdepartmental transfers of monies from DBI to other departments DBI works with, and asked about reimbursement from those departments. [There are different ‘buckets’ of activity that can be fee related within the department, e.g. time spent doing a variety of activities, so answer is yes this will be taken into consideration.]
• In order for DBI to provide the process of permitting there are valid costs that should be reimbursed from other departments through the fee schedule. (During the presentation Mr. Carpenter referred to direct & indirect costs so it is critical that staff provides Matrix with detailed information.)
  
  

*  Vice-President Lee -

• DBI has conducted the BPR and some of the proposed ideas will streamline procedures, will the firm take this into account when doing their assessment.  [If staff has this information available then the answer is yes, but the study is focusing on current processes.] (If the changes are known,  then that information will be included in the model to assess the fee for the services.)
  
  

*  Commissioner Murphy -

• In favor of the fee increases if the money is used for the infrastructure of DBI, but not if the General Fund can go in and take it for other reasons. (Incumbent that Department watches how money is spent, and to make sure when requests for fund transfers are made that it is directly related to DBI services.)
  
  

*  Commissioner Sattary -

• How can DBI avoid the danger of rewarding certain groups for inefficient or slow work, if the cost assessment is done to include the amount of time one person reviews a design as opposed to another? [It is beyond the scope for Matrix to say a person is taking too long in a certain area.  In some smaller cities services were sometimes contracted out when they could not be provided by the city department.]
• How can the Department’s activities relating to the private sector be balanced with looking at other jurisdictions and seeing how much time staff is taking to do certain tasks?  (Matrix is not going to assess the performance of staff, but the BIC hired Director Hasenin to do so and he has experience from other jurisdictions as to what it should take to perform different functions within the process of Code enforcement & inspection.)
• Currently DBI’s fees are tied to the cost of construction, but sometimes there is a tendency to under report the cost.  Once the problem exists of not having an accurate cost of construction, then the Department really cannot make an assessment of what percentage of construction should be applied to the fee to recover the expenses. (Trying to determine if Department will still use evaluation based fees, and may move to a different model, more of a service.)
  
  

*  Commissioner Theriault -

• The rewards that Commissioner Sattary was speaking of are not individual rewards by any means, and DBI is looking to finance the average that the Department has. (One more comment on BPR and efficiencies is that there are primary recommendations & BPR is related to a higher level of service, and to provide & deliver this may require additional fees & staffing.)

President Walker called for public comment.

Mr. Ken Cleaveland said that BOMA is a commercial real estate organization that represents office buildings downtown and a lot of businesses in the City.  Mr. Cleaveland stated that BOMA is one of DBI’s biggest customers, and said that BOMA has looked at the efficiencies in the Department, particularly staffing issues and welcomes the fee study since more staff might be needed in order for BOMA to get their tenant improvement (TI) approved quicker.  Mr. Cleaveland said that the Director talked about 10% staff vacancy, and said that 10% may be the ones needed to assure that tenants get their permits and space built out.  Mr. Cleaveland stated that he knows this is not an exercise in looking at efficiencies, and said that the BPR will make that more efficient and collaborative in terms of activity.  Mr. Cleaveland said that the pricing exercise that the Matrix Company will do is a way for customers to understand the amount DBI needs to charge in order to have faster service, since time is money for the commercial and business community in San Francisco.  Mr. Cleaveland stated that as Commissioner Murphy said customers do not want to see the fees pay for services not directly related to the activities of DBI.

Mr. Cleaveland stated that it is an interesting topic on how fees are calculated, and said he thought that BOMA would support the time that it takes to do each activity and the cost applied to each activity.  Mr. Cleaveland said that 90% of the Department’s budget goes to salaries and people’s time and expertise.  Mr. Cleaveland said that as with kitchen remodels the cost of the permit should not be based on the valuation of the job because sometimes the difference could be in the materials such as installing a Wolfe range versus a Kenmore range.  Mr. Cleaveland said that the Department is looking to base its prices of services and the biggest cost is time and then the personnel cost.

 

7.

Report, discussion and possible action on the proposed budget of the Department of Building Inspection for fiscal year 2008/2009.  [Director Isam Hasenin & John Madden, Acting Manager of Support Services]

Director Hasenin stated that this is the first presentation of this coming year’s budget.  Director Hasenin said what is interesting and challenging is that the Department will probably be modifying and revising this proposed budget for the next two months, due to the pending results of the fee study as well as the BPR implementation plan which may impact staffing levels.  Director Hasenin stated that this is a status quo budget and if DBI does not do anything with the fee study or the BPR then this is the budget for next year.  Director Hasenin called on John Madden, Acting Manager of Support Services to present the budget.

President Walker said that the budget needs to be heard twice before the Commission approves it, and she asked if the BIC would be looking at the changes before it goes on to the Mayor’s Office.

Mr. John Madden gave a presentation of the budget for fiscal year 2008/2009 and discussed the following points:

• This is a status quo budget, and does not include efficiencies or changes in the BPR project.
• Overall the budget represents a $3.7M increase over the current year’s budget.
• Department has taken a conservative view on budget and needs $10M from fund balance.
• President Walker mentioned $10M is more money than DBI has in its fund balance.
• John Madden said that is correct, however DBI has undertaken a comprehensive review of the fees which has not been done for five years.
• Department hopes to have the results & recommendations of the fee study to the BIC in time to present it to the Mayor, during the month of March.
• Based on previous statement DBI plans to use legislation & increase the fees if that is the case before the Board of Supervisors on June 1^st.
• Budget is a little over $51M, and in the current year there are almost 282 funded positions & the budget shows a total of 307.
• DBI is staying within its budget for the current year due to the Director’s control of expenditures.
• Department needs a management assistant, two customer service clerks, two inspectors, plumbing & electrical, to keep up with workload in those departments.
• Over time the Department has been spending down its $7M fund balance.
• Mentioned work orders for other City Departments, which are monies transferred from DBI for services that the Department utilizes.
• Additional requested positions are: Personnel analyst, microfilm technician, senior clerk typist, three inspectors, management assistant, & an upgrade from a junior management assistant to management asst. 
• Workshops, training for staff for technical processes.
• Budget item “Entertainment & Promotions” is a misnomer since it really covers community outreach, the DBI Summit, Code enforcement, and so on.
• DBI has moved some monies for materials & supplies into the automation upgrade project, and to improve the Permit Tracking System (PTS).
• $50K for field portable application development (Pilot project starting with Electrical Inspection Division using hand-held devices).

The Commissioners had concerns, made comments and asked many questions about the budget including:  (Director’s abbreviated responses appear in parenthesis)  [John Madden’s abbreviated responses appear in brackets]

*  President Walker -

• Question about the Code Enforcement disability access projected revenues for the current year, and why it is so much less than previous years: It is $770K versus almost $2M.  [It is an anomaly through enforcement actions, City Attorney, & courts, & in many cases goes through a lien process until DBI collects the lien or until they pay up, it comes in late.]
• Question on temporary versus permanent salaries:  There are management positions that DBI is trying out temporarily as opposed to Deputy Director positions.  [Mr. Madden said for example he is a retiree and working in a permanent position, but his job is charged at temporary salaries.  Also temporary BID, EID, & PID inspectors are used.  There is Prop “F” and this kind of skews the temporary salaries versus permanent.]
• Question about transfer to DPH regarding the SRO collaborative; DBI received the money & then work ordered it to DPH, but this does not show in 2008.  [Department assumes it will come up because of the thin nexus between that & enforcement services, but DBI waits until the latter part of the budget process and does not offer it but waits until it is asked for.]
• Question on the geotechnical engineer & fire protection engineer positions & how is the Director going to interact with the Fire Department in that capacity.  (Director said these positions were approved by BIC last year, but he did not fill them because of the shaky revenue picture so DBI is holding them.  The Director needs in-house expertise for things not related to what the e SFFD does.)
• Mayor has expressed support for DBI’s I.T. & MIS upgrade, but will any of these costs be reimbursed from other departments?  (If DBI keeps its existing system then no, but if DBI goes with the outside system & includes other City agencies then yes a contribution from those departments is expected.)

*  Commissioner Murphy -

• Will temporary inspectors have preference to become permanent inspectors before there is any new hiring? (Temporary staff is hired because there is no permanent list available, but once there is those employees will have to compete like everyone else.)
• Does the stakeholder or project sponsor pay for overtime?  [Yes, this is paid as part of the permit process for electrical or plumbing inspections.  DBI barely recovers the actual costs because the fees have not been increased in 5 years.] (It is called an “after hours” inspection and the customer pays for that.)

*  Commissioner Sattary -

• Is $6M the total amount allowed for MIS projects, because this project could take a long time & there was not anything in 06/07 expenditures or the 07/08, so not all of it would be realized in 08/09.  [Listed as projects & there are 3 components: $51K for Applications & Field Inspectors, $2M for Tracking System Enhancement, & $4M+ for Automation Upgrade.  With luck and the right people DBI will probably be able to spend most of this money within the current fiscal year.]
• There is a projection of overtime from previous years listed & one item is the number of hours & the second is quantity:  There is 2000 hours for one person, is that realistic overtime? [No, that is 2030 hours for all inspectors in that classification.]
• What is the difference between Cashier 2 and Cashier 3? [Cashier 3 is a supervisor: There are 3 cashiers and one central cashier in the Central Permit area: It is a level of responsibility & one supervises the other.] (Director said when he made his initial assessment one of the recommendations he made was that it was not a good accounting practice to allow staff to take monies & checks in so this process will be centralized into this cashier system.)

President Walker called for public comment.

Mr. Ken Cleaveland said in looking over the budget, generally speaking it is an excellent budget. Mr. Cleaveland stated he wanted to point out the automation processes and said he would love to see the $60K that is dedicated to the Electrical Inspection Division expanded and to see those handheld computers be able to update the permit on the property.  Mr. Cleaveland said that he loves the $6M for automation, but knows that it is a slow process; he trembles when the Director says it is a five year process to completely overhaul because it has been 10 years that BOMA has been pushing to get a better system in place.  Mr. Cleaveland stated that BOMA welcomes this expenditure to automate this process, and the City will soon adopt green building codes and more restrictions of how to build in the City.  Mr. Cleaveland said there should be more money dedicated to training people in the Department on how to interpret plans and also on new greener guidelines and requirements.

8.

Review and approval of the minutes of the October 17, 2007 regular meeting.

Commissioner Theriault made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, that the minutes be approved.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 002-08

9.

Review and approval of the minutes of the November 21, 2007 regular meeting.

Commissioner Theriault made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, that the minutes be approved.  The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 003-08

 

10.

Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

a.    Inquiries to Staff.  At this time, Commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices, and procedures, which are of interest to the Commission.

 

b.   Future Meetings/Agendas.  At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to   set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Building Inspection Commission.

Secretary Aherne said that President Walker had mentioned agendizing an item on housing, that she wanted a comparison between complaint driven inspections and routine inspections.  President Walker stated that she met with the Director and some of the Housing Division staff just to talk about what possible changes might be happening in the Housing Division, and how Housing would be included in the Business Process Reengineering.  President Walker said that the Department is still working on moving Housing forward and this item will be put on when the Department is ready to have a staff presentation about it.

 

President Walker stated that the Commission would probably have additional meetings to deal with the budget, and one of the things she wanted to put on the agenda was a discussion about the sub-committees of the Building Inspection Commission.  President Walker said that she was not talking about the Board of Examiners or Access Appeals, but there is one committee that specifically looks at appointing those bodies and the Litigation Committee.  President Walker stated that this could be discussed in February as officer are elected.  Secretary Aherne said that election of President and Vice-President is another item for the agenda, and by the Charter Rules officers are elected in February.

 

Commissioner Murphy asked when the deadline was, before the next meeting, to put an item on the agenda.  President Walker stated that she usually looks at agenda items the week before, and determines with the Director if staff is to prepared so it depends on what Commissioner Murphy would be asking for and how long it would take staff to prepare a response. President Walker said that she would like to have the item a couple of weeks ahead of time, and if it is not put on the agenda at the next meeting, then it can be agendized for a subsequent meeting.  President Walker and Secretary Aherne discussed that there may be a few more abatement appeals cases coming up at the next meeting.  President Walker said that over the next few months the BIC will have extra meetings to accommodate the budget process.

 

11.

Public Comment:  The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.

The Brown Act forbids a Commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment.  In response to public comment the Commission is limited to:

 

There was no public comment.

Adjournment.

 

Commissioner Sattary made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Murphy that the meeting be adjourned.  The motion carried unanimously. 

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 004-08 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 1:18 p.m.

                                                  

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

__________________

Sonya Harris
Assistant Secretary

 

 

__________________

Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary